<br></div><div>1 of the definitions on Google ("define: hacker") even states the following:</div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;line-height:15px"><i>an enthusiastic and skillful computer programmer or user.</i></span><br>

</div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;line-height:15px"><i><br></i></span></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="line-height:15px">(Although admittedly, the first definition that comes up is less than complimentary)</span></font></div>

<div><br></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="line-height:15px">The point remains, though, that too many people - and now a court- has assumed (without much evidence) that being a self proclaimed "hacker" automatically means a bad thing.</span></font></div>

<div dir="ltr">When you work for Uncle Sam, in any capacity, you have to be careful how you market yourself. And if you work anywhere near national security, you need to be extra careful especially in light of Snowden and Manning.<div>

<br>Holy crap, so if you are a 'hacker' in the hardware sense or software sense, they are trying to set the precedent that you have basically incriminated yourself.<br><br>As both a hardware hacker and software hacker, this scares me beyond reason.</div>